Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product

Disregarding the wider issue of whether to include brands or not, this proposal seems eminently sensible. Why include only brands for non-physical things? Physicality has never seemed relevant to me. Equinox ◑ 17:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree that, if brands are so stringently regulated, it is unclear why the physicality should make a difference for inclusion. But as I disagree with brands being so stringently and at the same time so complexly regulated, with disregard of lexicographical merit of entries (etymology, pronunciation, inflection, semantics in case of brands of pharmaceuticals, which are often used more often than the generic names), I am likely to oppose just to keep the scope of this harmful regulation as small as possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Per the vote's point that the rest of BRAND still refers to "products", is there consensus for or against altering the rest of brand to refer to "products and services" or "products, services and organizations" or such? (General question, @everyone.) - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I will oppose any extension to WT:BRAND that will make it more exclusionist. Thus, I will oppose its extension to services. I do not know how many people have my stance, though; that is to be figured out. If this vote passes, a follow-up vote should make it possible to extend WT:BRAND to services. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

What would this change? What kind of services would this affect? -- Liliana • 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, Greenpeace (org) is arguably neither a physical nor a non-physical product. It's debatable whether or not Outlook (e-mail service) is a product. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Someone would argue that "Amtrak" (Talk:Amtrak) needs to meet WT:BRAND, as it is a service mark. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good idea, I'd support it. WT:BRAND is too specific the way it is. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would support it for services. They are brands even if no product is involved. Equinox ◑ 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

So what about it? Is anyone gonna rewrite the vote? -- Liliana • 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please don't rewrite the vote. If the vote passes, another vote can be set up for services. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing that people will oppose this vote as is because it doesn't pertain to services. Therefore, two votes on the same matter (this will take until May! We don't have the time!) are pointless. -- Liliana • 15:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's ridiculous. The vote does not make things worse for people who want that names of services be regulated by WT:BRAND, so they have no good reason relating to services for opposing this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I have to disagree. You opposed the Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-12/Banning_Lojban_entries not because you disagreed with the proposal itself, but because you wanted the wording to be changed. People do this all the time. -- Liliana • 16:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-12/Banning_Lojban_entries introduced an error, and would make the wording of CFI worse; this votes does not introduced any error AFAICT. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

It does, going by your vote, the first sentence would say "A brand name should be included...", but the following text would say product, which is highly confusing and worse than the current text by a large margin. -- Liliana • 16:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I disagree; I especially disagree with the overblown assertion that it is "worse than the current text by a large margin". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

But you know what? I have fixed the issue in the vote. Satisfied? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fine, and I set up a competing vote. -- Liliana • 17:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No good idea, IMHO, to set up this another vote to start so early after the start of this vote. You could have waited to see how this vote fares. There are no deadlines. Furthermore, you got the name wrong (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Brand names and physical product 2), as your vote is not about "physical product" but rather about the regulation of services. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I made the vote periods identical on purpose, so people can decide whether they want one or the other, or none of the two. -- Liliana • 17:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is not good when two votes on the same section of CFI are running in parallel. Again, there are no deadlines. Again, if this vote passes, nothing bars anyone from further adjusting CFI to also deal with services in WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

And I remind you that human life expectancy is only 80 years. -- Liliana • 17:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

What does 80 years have to do with one month? By pitching the two votes against each other, you are inviting people to oppose one of them only so that the other wins, when in fact they are not really contradictory but complementary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The second vote includes the first. Both votes strive to remove the "physical" part of brand name criteria. The difference is simply whether the criteria should also be extended to services or not. -- Liliana • 17:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply